On the night of Oct. 1, I sat in my living room with the television turned to NBC, excited for the moderators to cue the candidates onto the stage. As a political science student, this is the stuff I nerd out about. But as an American, I take every election season debate as a chance to witness a distilled portrayal of the political climate and to learn about two differing visions of America’s future.
Debates are a great resource to get familiar with each candidate, filling you in before you step into a ballot box each November. But when Ohio Senator JD Vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz walked out on stage, I honestly didn’t know what to expect.
The main thing I drew from the debate was not specific coverage of the issues; it was largely a rehash of points discussed in the debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. It was interesting to see Vance perform better than Trump did in arguing Trump’s own points, but there wasn’t a whole lot of new ground covered. What was more compelling was the tone the debate took.
In an unexpected turn of events, we got to witness a calm, respectful debate about American politics.
It is not a hot take to say that Trump has irrevocably changed the face of American politics. One of the many parts of politics he completely redefined was debating. I will never forget those first Republican primary debates back in 2016, where he unveiled his unique blend of improvisation, truth-bending, ad hominem, gloating and skirting of any responsibility — often within the same response.
The funniest thing is the fact that it worked.
Now, eight years later, the civil discussion so integral to American politics doesn’t seem so civil anymore. Watching recordings of Barack Obama debating John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 is a disorienting experience, and it makes one regretful of the current state of things.
The debate between Walz and Vance felt like a return to form, a step back from the mutual indictments and pot shots between candidates that have become central to the modern expectations of political debate. Walz and Vance seemed to tolerate each other on stage, perhaps even respect one other.
For instance, when Walz shared that his son had witnessed a school shooting, Vance responded with condolences and prayers: “Christ, have mercy.”
I can’t remember the last heartwarming moment in a presidential debate, even when moderators attempted to get Trump and Hillary Clinton to say something nice about each other in 2016.
Maybe the debaters know that Americans are likely growing tired of divisiveness and things being so irreconcilable. If not a well-intentioned and refreshing display of politeness, Vance’s approach could have been a wise move to better his image. Everyone has heard about his “childless cat ladies” claims, and he is not shy about his extreme stances on reproductive rights and immigration.
I regret to remind myself that there are some points of departure that can’t be smiled and hand-shaken over. For example, when Walz pressed on the issue of Jan. 6, Vance responded with redirection and distraction. When Walz asked him directly whether Trump even lost the presidential election in 2020, he did the same: “Tim, I’m focused on the future.”
I don’t know if the debate between Walz and Vance is the first step in a journey back to civility and respect in politics, and maybe believing so is naive, wishful thinking. Although we got to watch a civil discussion play out on Oct. 1, there are still irreconcilable differences within politics that need to be addressed.
While disagreement is healthy and a vital part of our democracy, there are areas in which we must return to common sense and normalcy. It may be a while before we can get back to that point, however, and we all seem to be along for the ride.
